[Freeciv-Dev] Re: 3 patches for use on public gameservers (fwd <- rp@xxxxxxxxxx)

[Paul Zastoupil <paulz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 10:52:15PM +0200, Raimar Falke wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 11:35:24AM -0700, Paul Zastoupil wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:03:58PM +0200, Reinier Post wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 07:58:16AM -0700, Paul Zastoupil wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:06:47AM +0200, Reinier Post wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 07:21:09PM -0700, Paul Zastoupil wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > The "maintainers" are certainly capable.  But everytime the patch 
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > to be changed, things will break until its done.  I find that I have
> > > > > > less and less time to do the things that I would wish for Freeciv, 
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > I know Reinier is feeling the same way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I must add that I'd never expect the setting of a DEBUG variable to
> > > > > affect the value of variables.  And the default should be to compile
> > > > > with debugging off.
> > > > 
> > > > That is not what I was suggesting.  
> > > 
> > > No, but it is apparently how the minimum timeout is behaving at present.
> > > 
> > > > Didn't you notice I agreed that it shouldn't be tied to anything at 
> > > > compile time.
> > > > 
> > > > What about a mintimeout at cmd level hack?
> > > 
> > > I like that.
> > 
> > Ok, here it is, although a but ugly.
> > 
> > mintimeout can only be set from the server console.
> 
> A cleaner solution for the -1 case may be a new server variable
> "autogame" which has to appropriate cmdlevel. No ugly hack and the
> IMHO good separation of timeout and autogame.

But this doesn't help the case of someone setting the timeout to 1 on
a public server.


-- 
Paul Zastoupil